1996.01.26 / Todd K /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: 26 Jan 1996 22:50:02 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>  I believe the rest mass of the photon would be the ratio of the total
>system of the neutron when it decays into a proton plus electron plus
>neutrino of a hydrogen atom in MEVs divided into the tiny MEV of the
>neutrino. Photon rest mass is proportional to ratio of neutrino
>MEV/neutron MEV. This of course was the discovery of the neutrino as
>per Fermi of neutron decay.

Can you explain briefly why this ratio definition makes any sense whatsoever?
Why *should* the photon have a mass defined as above?  What physics is 
there which would dictate it?
 
__________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                	    !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
Grad Student, High Energy Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
Northwestern University	            !  Email:  todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu
Fermilab Experiment E835            !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
		 WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------		 
If you're an archaeologist, I bet it's real embarrassing to put together a
skull from a bunch of ancient bone fragments, but then it turns out it's 
not a skull but just an old dried-out potato.
   
 				- from Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
__________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / P Arabshahi /  Jobs in Finance - good place to network
     
Originally-From: payman@maxwell.ee.washington.edu ( Payman Arabshahi 8834870 )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jobs in Finance - good place to network
Date: 27 Jan 1996 00:40:39 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

For those colleagues with strong Math/Physics backgrounds who may be
interested in pursuing a job in the field of Finance, here is some
information of interest. 

The 1996 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence for Financial
Engineering (CIFEr'96) will be held in New York, March 24-26, 1996. This
could be a good place to network and meet people in the industry. Among
those participating are several top ranking officers of various investment
firms, as well as recognized academic researchers in the field. 

For more information, please send me an email and I will forward you the
program outline, tutorial information, and presentation schedule. You can
also simply wait till February 1, and visit the updated CIFEr'96 homepage
at

	http://www.ieee.org/nnc/conferences/cfp/cifer96.html

with the same details and more.

Best wishes

--
Payman Arabshahi
Electronic Publicity Chair, CIFEr'96             Tel  : (205) 895-6380
Dept. of Electrical & Computer Eng.              Fax  : (205) 895-6803
University of Alabama in Huntsville              payman@ebs330.eb.uah.edu
Huntsville, AL 35899                             http://www.eb.uah.edu/ece

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpayman cudfnPayman cudlnArabshahi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:09:09 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

*****************
Magnum 350 Run #9

Last night, I rebuilt my heat exchanger. I rolled a piece of 1/2 inch mesh
screen wire into a 3 foot long cylinder 8 inches in diameter, wrapped my
tubing around it in a spiral, and placed it in front of my 60 watt box
fan, with the axis of the cylinder aligned with the axis of the air flow
from the fan. The flow was confined in the 14-inch square chimney
arrangement described in earlier posts. This is a standard layout used in,
for example, commercial water distillers, and is standard engineering
practice for such applications. (The distillers, of course, use stainless
steel tubing with fins for heat dissipation, not plastic tubing.) Next, I
installed my 2,000 watt rated dimmer switch so that I could control the
resistance in the hot wire of a heavy duty extension cord, and plugged my
Gran Pappy deep fryer into it. I then did a number of test runs with
various dimmer switch settings, until I got the Gran Pappy to impart 458
joules/sec to the water in the fryer. That was very close to the 469
joules/sec that Jed reported for the 30 minute run at Power Gen. I then
refilled the Gran Pappy with cold water, waited awhile, then placed the
hoses from the Magnum 350 in it, turned on the box fan, the pump, and the
deep fryer, and did a run. Here are the results:

Starting air and water temperature: 56 degrees F.
Ending air temperature: 56 degrees F.
Ending water temperature: 144 degrees F.
Elapsed time: 47 minutes.
Water volume was not measured, but was about 4 liters.
Flow rate was not measured, but was probably about 4 liters/min.

In contrast to earlier runs at 1100 watts, this run did not produce a
runaway temperature increase. For the last 15 minutes or so, the
temperature in the reservoir held steady at about 144 degrees F,
indicating that an equilibrium temperature had been reached. This is the
first time this has happened in any of my runs. However, since my
reservoir is at the end of my flow loop (i.e., water flows from the Gran
Pappy to the cooling coils, thence to the pump reservoir, and then via a
short length of tubing back to the Gran Pappy) this means that the inlet
temperature to the Gran Pappy is in excess of 144 degrees. Martin Sevior
tells me that for the 469 watt run at Power Gen, the inlet temperature to
the Patterson cell was 35 degrees C, which is 95 degrees F. Assuming a
room temperature of 20 degrees C, that means the equilibrium inlet
temperature to the Power Gen cell was 15 degrees C above ambient. Since
the air temperature in my workshop was 56 degrees F, the temperature
change on my run was 144 - 56 = 88 degrees F, or 48.9 degrees C. In other
words, in my run a temperature difference of 48.9 degrees C was required
to attain equilibrium whereas, at Power Gen, a difference of 15 degrees C
was reported. Once again, there appears to be a massive, unexplained
discrepancy between what was reported at Power Gen and what I have
observed when I have attempted to replicate those results. Worse, on the
face of it, is this: everything about my system seems better suited to
dissipating heat than the Power Gen setup. Despite that, my equilibrium
temperature is at a much higher level than Craven's. This result frankly
does not yet make sense to me.

Clearly, my facsimilie of the Power Gen setup is not identical to it. Day
by day, however, I have been modifying it in ways that move it closer to
Craven's setup in the ways that matter, but without success. Logically, my
setup should differ from that used by Cravens primarily in that my heat
dissipation capacity should be greater than his. I am using a 60 watt box
fan for cooling, whereas he used a 3.5 watt muffin fan. I used, in the
above run, 25 feet of Lasco 3/8th inch ID polyvinyl chloride tubing with
1/16th inch wall thickness, whereas Cravens used about 15 feet of Tygon
3/8th inch ID polyvinyl chloride tubing with 1/16th inch wall thickness.
Unless there is something really spectacular about the way Tygon
manufactures their tubing, I would expect that my extra 10 feet of length
should give me about a 40 percent increase in heat dissipation capability.
And I also have much more surface area of fluid exposed to evaporation
than Cravens had at Power Gen. He had a small hole drilled in the top of
his reservoir. I don't know exactly how big the hole was, but I am
guessing a couple of inches. However, even if he drilled away the entire
lid of the reservoir, I still had a lot more exposed surface, because the
surface area of the Gran Pappy deep fryer is *much larger* than the
surface area of the pump reservoir, and the entire surface area of the
Gran Pappy was completely exposed. Logically, my system should have had a
lower equilibrium temperature than Cravens, but it didn't: it had a much,
much higher equilibrium temperature! How is this to be explained? I
frankly do not know. Every time I make a change and do another run, I sit
their watching the thermometer, hoping that it will behave in a way that
resembles what we have been told happened at Power Gen, but it never does.
Instead, my apparatus stubbornly insists in behaving in a way that
scarcely resembles the behavior claimed for the Power Gen demo. It's
enough to make a grown man cry! 

Anyway, I'm a stubborn guy. Maybe Tygon polyvinyl chloride tubing really
is better at dissipating heat than Lasco polyvinyl chloride tubing. It
sure as hell costs a lot more: $1.50 a foot from the only supplier I could
locate, as opposed to $.29 a foot for the Lasco tubing! So that's my next
attempt. I will special order some Tygon tubing and give it a try, though
I must say I don't have a lot of hope at this point. (Is there anybody out
there who knows anything about the Tygon Formula R3603 tubing? Is it
really possible that it could be that much better at dissipating heat than
other polyvinyl chloride tubing of the same size? If so, how? I mean,
polyvinyl chloride is pretty uniform stuff, isn't it?)   

Anyway, more later.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
Date: 27 Jan 1996 03:08:20 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4eaf66$mhm@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
fc3a501@AMRISC02.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:

> What do you mean with "Physicist say the 
> Universe is structureless?"
> We have galaxies and superheaps(?) at the top.
> We have atoms and elementary particles at the bottom.
> Sometimes we even find intelligent life in between.
> Enough structure for me.
> Or do you really mean "P. say the U. has no 'telos' -
> no goal, no sense, no myth" ?

  I have made that query quite clear. Physicist today do not ask or
answer the question. Is the universe a structure itself or is it not?
Leibniz to get his monads said the Universe was a structure something,
one huge Onion where each cell looks like any other cell. Galaxies,
stars, space are just parts, but is the whole something? This is the
question astronomers and cosmologists and physicists simply ignore or
are too afraid or too stupid to confront.
  Is the Universe something or is it nothing but a bunch of galaxies in
space? We all rightfully laugh at it being an Onion. Christian folks
think the universe is a bunch of galaxies and somewhere god resides out
there among the galaxies. I, say that since all things, galaxies
whatever is made up of atoms hence the whole works, the whole thing
must be an atom itself. Just simple logical reasoning that if
everything is atoms then that implies the Whole is an atom itself. Even
Aristotle or Plato who hated Democritus would agree and accept the
logic that if all things are atoms implies Everything is one atom.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / A Plutonium /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio.misc,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
Date: 27 Jan 1996 03:26:23 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4e7qsb$v1i@janus.cqu.edu.au>
Lance Ryan <cs013@cq-pan.cqu.edu.au> writes:

> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 
> wrote:
> >In article <4dtbun$t81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> >Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> > the electron component of the photon.
> >
> > The neutron and proton are about    930 MEV
> >
> > The electron                           .5 MEV
> >
> > The neutrino energy is approx.      1.7 X 10^-5 MEV
> >the photon
> >has either a positron plus a -neutrino or the photon is a electron plus
> >a +neutrino wherein the rest mass of the photon will correspond with
> >the ratio of approx  10^-5 MEV. The second view is of the wave
natu>-neutrino but as it becomes more energetic or picks up energy
from its
> >surroundings then the photon, one of the neutrinos builds up into
> >either a positron or electron.
> >   These views are supported by known experiments, where in the fact
> >energetic photons revert into electrons. Once a photon, now an electron.
> 
> Does this infer that photons are the primary link on the energy 
> chain? ie photon -> electron -> proton _ext,ext. each increase 
> in order is equivalent to increase in charge magnitude. So 
> without light we would eventually break down the source of ZPE 
> itself thus the universe would return to singularity?
> Lance

 No, atoms are the start and the end. In an Atom Totality, atoms are
all things and the only things. Thus regardless of what you want to
consider as ground, or base, or primitive, it is atoms which is the
starting point.

Here is a scheme which I am confident in. Atoms -> 2neutrinos ->
1photon -> many photons -> neutron ->neutrino + electron + proton ->
atom

This helps in biology. We consider the DNA as the endpoint of biology.
But that boundary is artificial. For it is the Atoms which are alive.
Biology will never be solved unless it reaches down into the atom. The
gap between the first DNA and organic compounds is far far far too much
of a gap. Thus, I am confident that the neutrino and the photon are
"perfected strands of DNA". Hence the first life came from photons or
neutrinos or electricity. New life is created all the time when a
photon rest mass comes to rest and the perfect DNA, provided there is
enough energy can turn this 'stopped' photon into a living organism. A
cosmic ray was measured at 10^16 MEV which is enough energy to create a
whole entire virus, bacteria, even a small plant from scratch. This is
how AIDS virus came to Earth. When we get into outerspace, we will be
able to inspect lifeless containers which all of a sudden contain life
due to a cosmic ray of a energetic proton or electron stopped and its
photon DNA turned into a 'new life form'.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 08:47:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>I must say I don't have a lot of hope at this point. (Is there anybody out
>there who knows anything about the Tygon Formula R3603 tubing? Is it
 
I know nothing about it, but I observed that at 35 deg C roughly 2 meters
of the tubing lost 70 watts or so at a liter per minute, when the tube
was sitting in air. What is the heat loss from the tube you are using now?
Have you done any flow calorimetry? Also, how do you measure electrical
input into the "grand pappy" thing?
 
I think you should concentrate on replicating the Power-Gen setup more
closely, using the same configuration and materials. Establish a baseline
for that setup before trying variations. Since I measured coming out of
it in the flow, I suggest you do some flow calorimetry too, to make sure
we are on the same wavelength. The flow measuments I took indicated a
500 watt continuous flux. The warm air from the heat exchanger showed that
it was effectively removing a lot of the heat at relatively low tempeatures.
If you don't see: 1. An 8 deg C Delta T and 2. Warm air from the heat
exchanger at a relatively low temperature (~45 C) then your system is
very different from the one I observed.
 
I suggest you build the same kind of heat exchanger Cravens used, with a
covered top, a computer fan, holes around the bottom and so on. People at
MIT remarked that it looked like an optimum design. (I did not catch their
names.) Also, leave the top of the reservoir partly open, and let the fan
remove evaporation and heat from the top, too. That may be important.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.26 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:25:18 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <BjDJYRB.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
... 
>You idiot, can't you read?
...

Jed, can't you write?  You've written tens of thousands of words
about a data table that would consist of less than 100 digits.
No one can understand your data, and your ludicrous attempts
to spin, twist, color, warp and garble your results, though
heroic, are comical.

I've been reading your tumid contributions for years, searching
for a kernel among the turds, to no avail.

To think that you might have spent all that time and energy
over the past half-decade championing a worthy cause makes
me sad.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 /  TomasBC /  Re: 3rd Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: tomasbc@aol.com (TomasBC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 3rd Experiments proving photon has finite rest mass
Date: 27 Jan 1996 02:40:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This is my first time checking out this physics interest group. I am not a
physicist but have read some about quantum mechanics and relativity. I was
actually looking for a posting relating to Thomas Young's double slit
experiment and the photoelectric effect as I have some questions. First
let me explain my problem. 

Quantum mechanics postulates that energy only exists as quanta and vary
according to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. High frequency
equals high energy. Now, forgive any mix ups, as E=mc squared and c is a
constant would that not mean that all matter can only exist as
quanta(however small)? Perhaps relativity does not apply to subatomic
particles. Another problem I have is how I've read that quantum physicists
are looking for the particle that carries the gravitational force. Again,
doesn't relativity state that gravity is simply a result of how the
space-time fabric is curved by mass? That is, it only appears to be a
force but in actuality it is due to the shape of space all around us and
therefore inescapable. 

Well, now to some questions about the double slit experiment ( if anyone
is still with me ). Is it actually possible to emit one photon at a time
and aim it at one slit? Or is that just a convenient way of putting it? I
know if on slit is closed then the photons strike every surface of the
photographic plate creating an image of the shape of the slit. When the
other slit is opened and photons are fired through both of them, they
interfere with each other and produce alternating bands. Now, depending on
the answer to my earlier question, what happens if you fire one photon
through one opened slit while the other slit is closed, the alternate
opening the other and closing the first untill you have an image. Do they
still interfere? Or is it only when both are opened simultaneously.
Besides, when firing photons through only one slit, if the resultant image
gradually fades to black at the sides rather than having a sharp
delineation between light and dark, does that not of itself prove that
it's a wave since it has been bent outwards towards the sides. 

One more question. Not being a physicist I cannot conceive of a wave as
existing without any particles. I feel it has to be made of something. If
it is just a mathematical convenience ( I'm not saying it is ) doesn't
that make it a moot point to discuss whether light is a wave or particle.
Can the double slit experiment be explained by photons crashing into each
other from each slit and thereby not landing where they normally would
were the other slit closed? This is why I asked about alternating through
one slit then the other. 

I know I'm asking a lot of questions and they've all been answered before,
but if any knowledgable person has the patience to answer some or all of
them I would be very grateful. Any references would be nice too. Thanks in
advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomasbc cudlnTomasBC cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / LeeYih Chiew /  cmsg cancel <4e8pm4$aig@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu>
     
Originally-From: lchiew@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (LeeYih Chiew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.cond-ma
ter,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <4e8pm4$aig@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 1996 21:03:41 GMT


be vewy vewy quiet, we're hunting spam
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlchiew cudfnLeeYih cudlnChiew cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.26 / John Elston /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 26 Jan 1996 04:54:50 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

Out of curiosity, what is the average delta T across your Gran Pappy?
Since your flow rate guestimate is 4 times the PowerGen rate and your
target heating is about 1/3 of the 1344 figure it should theoretically
be somewhere around 1.5 C.  My guess is that you are seeing a higher
delta T than that and your Gran Pappy is supplying more heat than you 
expect.

--
John M. Elston                   (217) 352-6908
Elston Computer Consulting       elston@prairienet.org 
2708 Santa Ana Rd
Champaign, IL   61821-2339       Coins & Computers & Cards, Oh My! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / Matt Austern /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: Matt Austern <austern@well.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 00:47:28 -0800
Organization: none

Barry Merriman wrote: 
> Well, that would be part of the problem I alluded to---if a protocol
> is extremely difficult, it does not provide an effective way to
> demonstrate the reality of the phenomena. Of course, maybe thats just the
> way the world is. But real/or not, such a situation does greatly
> impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the
> possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for
> producing artifiacts. 

Moreover, if the effect is so finicky that only a few experts in the world
can possibly have a chance of achieving it, if the concerted effort of a 
major lab are insufficient, then this means that even if the effect is
actually real it's worthless for industrial purposes.  If anything's going to be 
used on a large enough scale to be of any value commercially, then, more or less
by definition, it has to be trivial to replicate.

The claim that this is all very complicated, and that ordinary skilled scientists
can't get it right no matter how hard they try, is very much a double edged
sword.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenaustern cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Dick Blue wrong as usual
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue wrong as usual
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 96 09:36:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue), who never reads anything and never
knows what he is talking about, writes:
 
    "jr= "There is a protocol . . . replicated by SRI, IMRA, Ed Storms, Dennis
    jr=  Cravens."
 
    Really?  My, Jed, you certainly do use the term protocol loosely.
 
    SRI used D2O and Cravens using H2O.  If these are part of a common protocol
    why would you not include the rubbing of two sticks together as a
    replication of the same effect?"
 
Cravens described Pd - D2O in many earlier papers, including his ICCF3 and
ICCF4 contributions.
 
 
    "Beta Phase Loading?  How is that determined?"
 
Read the literature, you will find out.
 
and bla, bla, bla . . . Dick would save himself a lot of time and
embarrassment if he would just learn to shut up and read the papers before
commenting on them. But alas, that is asking too much of a "skeptic." The
"skeptics" rule is that you must never read any paper or do any experiment.
That might corrupt your inborn intuitive perfect knowledge of nature. You
must avoid the corrupting dross of actual information or <shudder!> filthy
hands-on experimentation.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / J Whitten /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: ez049941@boris.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: 27 Jan 1996 03:51:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

Todd K. Pedlar (todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
: >
: >  I believe the rest mass of the photon would be the ratio of the total
: >system of the neutron when it decays into a proton plus electron plus
: >neutrino of a hydrogen atom in MEVs divided into the tiny MEV of the
: >neutrino. Photon rest mass is proportional to ratio of neutrino
: >MEV/neutron MEV. This of course was the discovery of the neutrino as
: >per Fermi of neutron decay.

: Can you explain briefly why this ratio definition makes any sense whatsoever?
: Why *should* the photon have a mass defined as above?  What physics is 
: there which would dictate it?

It looks to me that taking a ratio like that won't even result in a mass: 
you'll have a dimensionless number.  Am I missing something?

--
 -----------------------------------------
| Jedidiah Whitten                       |
| jswhitten@ucdavis.edu                  |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
 -----------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenez049941 cudfnJedidiah cudlnWhitten cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 96 09:24:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Austern <austern@well.com> writes:
 
>Moreover, if the effect is so finicky that only a few experts in the world
>can possibly have a chance of achieving it, if the concerted effort of a 
>major lab are insufficient, then this means that even if the effect is
>actually real it's worthless for industrial purposes.  If anything's going to be 
>used on a large enough scale to be of any value commercially, then, more or less
>by definition, it has to be trivial to replicate.
 
That is incorrect. Most effects start out being very difficult to replicate,
and then gradually, with practice, they get easier. It took 20 years to
make incandescent lights practical. (Edison finished the job that others
began a generation earlier). It took 15 years to make transistors cheap
and reliable. You are also incorrect because you are ignoring the fact
that some newer CF processes are much easier to replicate than the older
PdD version. The progress you are looking for has already occurred.
 
>The claim that this is all very complicated, and that ordinary skilled scientists
>can't get it right no matter how hard they try, is very much a double edged
>sword.
 
Nonsense. The ordinary skilled scientist cannot build an automobile starting
with iron ore, can he? The ordinary skilled scientist cannot fabricate a
fax machine or a television. This standard you set: 'the ordinary scientist
rule' is arbitrary and absurd. If you removed your ordinary scientist from
our high tech society, in which skilled experts do all important work and
provide everything from food to water to transporation, your skilled
scientist would die of hunger in a month. The only standard that makes
any sense in judging high technology is the mythical patent law creation:
the Person Skilled in the Art.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / David Gaskill /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 27 Jan 1996 15:04:04 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

In message <3109E6A0.7A1C@well.com> - Matt Austern <austern@well.com> writes:


Barry Merriman wrote: 
>> Well, that would be part of the problem I alluded to---if a protocol
>> is extremely difficult, it does not provide an effective way to
>> demonstrate the reality of the phenomena. Of course, maybe thats just the
>>
>> impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the
>> possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for
>> producing artifiacts. 

>Moreover, if the effect is so finicky that only a few experts in the world
>can possibly have a chance of achieving it, if the concerted effort of a 
>major lab are insufficient, then this means that even if the effect is
>actually real it's worthless for industrial purposes.  If anything's going to be 
>used on a large enough scale to be of any value commercially, then, more or less
>by definition, it has to be trivial to replicate.

>The claim that this is all very complicated, and that ordinary skilled scientists
>can't get it right no matter how hard they try, is very much a double edged
>sword.

I don't think that the fact that an effect is extremely difficult to replicate 
in the laboratory necessarily leads to the conclusion  that the effect  
cannot be  of any commercial significance. The early development work on 
point contact  transistors provides a good illustration. It was nearly 
impossible to make two  the same and as one researcher was reputed to 
have commented, "You can't  make them on Mondays".     
    
None of this was surprising because the semi-conductor physics involved   
was not well understood. None of those involved could have imagined  
that, within a few decades, millions of transistors would be incorporated  
into a  machine into which I can dictate this note and make it available 
in virtually   every corner of the world.     
    
Nobody, as far as I am aware even pretends to know understand the 
physics  of the CF effect if indeed it exists. I use "CF" as a convenient  
shorthand for  an unknown process. If and when it is understood it may  
well be as easily reproduceable as today's semi -conductors.     
    
All this being said, there is one significant difference between early  
semi-conductor work and the current work on CF. Workers outside Bell  
Labs could make transistors. Bell Labs did not have a monopoly on the 
necessary techniques. In the case of CF it is claimed that other 
organisations have replicated the CETI results but none of them have 
published results in reputable  and internationally accepted journals. The 
only results published by an organisation of international repute  were 
completely negative.     
    
It is frequently and correctly pointed out on this Newsgroup that you  
can't prove a negative and we may indeed be standing on the brink of an  
industrial revolution which will dwarf the previous one.     
     
On the other hand it is a matter of public record that results that can only 
be replicated by the originators, frequently  under rather unscientific  
conditions, often after a period start to acquire an aroma of decomposing 
fish before disappearing from view.     
    
I do not know to this day how the magician  made the girl disappear  
from the cabinet after I had, at his invitation, carefully inspected the 
whole setup. I would simply comment that this would seem to be a great 
deal more difficult to achieve than causing a quantity of water to appear 
warmer than conventional physics might lead you to believe it should be. 
 
David   

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Bruce TOK /  Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
Date: 25 Jan 1996 17:07:19 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Gregg E Economou (geest3+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <4dk02r$3g9@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
: >>OK, dumb question, but why is the core of Jupiter still so hot. I can
: >>understand that as the planet was formed, the pressure increased causing
: >>the temperature to rise. But, since there is not nuclear fusion at the
: >>core, why has the heat not radiated away it the billions of years since it
: >>was formed? This is not a trick question, but one of curiosity. Thanks. 
: >
: >Presumably the same reason the earth is still so hot internally:  fission of naturally
: >occuring radioactive elements.
: >
: oh god... Think of the fact that the earth has 20 miles of ROCK and another
: 1000 miles of AIR between itself and the cold, and that this exceptional
: insulation has managed ot keep the heat in??? 
: Jupiter's diameter is far greater than that of Earth. IT is only logical
: to conclude that there is some degree of insulative ability in its 
: thousands of miles of liquid surface.. Also as space is a vacuum, the
: space around the planets itself is an excellent insulation. 
: Heat can only escape via radiation, which is not generated in any large way.

That this last is true is why Jupiter has been able to retain its heat
over geologic time:  the cloudtop temperature is very low.
Nevertheless, the flux from the interior is several times what it gets
from the Sun, so we know Jupiter is generating its own heat.

Radiogenic heating on Jupiter is negligible because of its composition;
heat of initial formation it the likeliest answer (on Saturn,
differential separation, "helium rain", is thought to be important).

Jupiter's characteristic cooling time is a little larger than the age of
the Solar System.

cf: Hubbard, W., Planetary Interiors, Van Nostrand, 1984. pp 234-282.


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / Robert Horst /  CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 20:19:34 +0100
Organization: Tandem Computers

Last Sunday, Jan 20 1996, I attended the Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium
put on by Infinite Energy magazine in Cambridge, Mass.  I have been reading
s.p.f since 1989, but have not posted frequently.  This was my first chance
to meet face-to-face with some of the people involved with cold fusion.

The conference was very different from the ones I usually attend.  Much of
it was tutorial in nature and was presented as video clips and summaries of
various projects.  Most of the presenters should be familiar to most of you
-- Eugene Mallove, Jed Rothwell, Mitchell Swartz, Chris Tinsley and Hal
Fox.  Also presenting were James Griggs and MIT professor Keith Johnson.
Peter Hagelstein cancelled at the last minute. There were about 100
attendees, but they seemed to be mostly those who are following the field
rather than those actively working on experiments. 

It would have been good to have more presentations by those working
directly on experiments, but I enjoyed most of the talks nonetheless.  Here
are a few highlights:

-  There were strong rumors that CETI may soon be acquired by a large
corporation for around $1M.  The name of the company was mentioned, but I
will not pass it along until there is some confirmation.

-  It is hard to see how there is any doubt left that CETI is getting
excess heat.  There are at least five separate groups who have seen excess
-- Patterson, Cravens, Miley (U of Illinois), U of Missouri, and at least
one corporation.  There have also been two successful public demonstrations
(SOFE and PowerGen).  The large number of groups eliminates fraud as a
possibility, and the large amount of excess eliminates instrument error
(400 or more watts excess is hard to misplace, even with Radio Shack
voltmeters).  There were interesting rumors about new higher-temperature
beads (ceramic substrate?) and possible future demos (such as a CF-powered
dunebuggy).

- CETI has shown questionable business sense in their relationship with the
media (first asking for media coverage, then refusing TV coverage) and in
their overall strategy.  They seem to have decided to try to perfect their
beads more before offering them for sale.  This seems to be a very risky
strategy given that there would be an immediate market for the beads today.
 They may be left with nothing if someone else comes up with an even better
process before they come to market.

- Jed showed an interesting picture of some used CETI beads.  (They looked
very beat up, with green corrosion showing through on some.)  But the
picture was of some older beads, and they may have improved on them now.

-  Griggs gave an interesting talk, and I enjoyed talking with him later.  
He seems to be a competent no-nonsense engineer who just wants to find out
exactly what is really going on in his machine.  He reported on new
contracts with NASA, TVA and Georgia Tech.  All three will be carefully
testing his machines and reporting the energy balance.  Within 9 months we
should get solid evidence on whether his machine is over unity or not.  His
most recent data still shows around 30-40% over unity.

- Tinsely gave a very entertaining account of his trip to Russia to
investigate the Potapov device, and also talked about his ride on a scooter
purportedly powered by an over-unity magnetic motor.   He says that it has
to be either real or fraud -- it cannot be a mistake.  I had previously
completely discounted all the over-unity motor claims, but evidently the
inventor has produced some very impressive magnets and multi-Farad
capacitors that have been certified to work as claimed, so he does not seem
to be your run-of-the-mill flake.  Tinsely was not yet convinced (nor am
I), but at least I will keep reading the reports now.

- There is a new device that gives a brilliant plasma discharge powerful
enough to melt ceramic tile with only about 70 watts input.  They showed an
impressive video and passed around the melted tile.  Wind tunnel tests have
shown it to be about 10:1 over unity.  The process has been replicated, but
to my knowledge, the over-unity claims have not.  This also will be
interesting to watch.

Over all, I am glad to have diverted my business trip to attend the
conference. It was a great opportunity to talk to people and get questions
answered.  In the last year I have gone from neutral to being convinced
that at least some of these experiments are showing massive excess heat. 
The conference reinforced that position.  

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.27 / Peter Soetens /  FAQ For this newsgroup
     
Originally-From: Peter.Soetens@ping.be (Peter Soetens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ For this newsgroup
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 22:34:02 GMT
Organization: PING Belgium

I want more information about this newsgroup, but I can 't find any
FAQ.

Can one post here also articles about Nuclear Fusion?

'Hope you can help me..


Peter

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenSoetens cudfnPeter cudlnSoetens cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan 28 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
